Re: [Fecframe] I-D Action: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-04.txt

[Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>]

Mike,

>> More importantly. Since:
>> 
>> 1- you noticed we impose restrictions on the way LDPC-Staircase codes are
>> being used in section 4.1;
>> 
>> 2- you certainly remember the discussion we had in 2009 concerning 10 out
>> of the 13 patents mentioned in the RFC5170 IPR disclosure, whose
>> conclusion
>> is here:
>> 	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg01384.html
>> 
>> 3- the present I-D only considers LDPC-Staircase codes whereas RFC5170
>>  defines two FEC schemes;
>> 
>> you will probably conclude like us that QC's IPR disclosure for RFC5170
>> does
>> not necessarily apply to this I-D. Hence our question: does QC intend to
>> do
>> a new IPR disclosure? When?
> 
> *** This specification inherits technology from RFC 5170, and we have made
> IPR declarations with regards to RFC 5170.  As far as I know, we do not
> plan to make any further IPR declarations on this specification.

IPR disclosure transitivity is only possible if the conditions of use are
exactly the same as that of the initial document. This is not the case
since we restrict to cases where G==1 and only focus on LDPC-
Staircase codes, and you recognized it.

Additionally  you acknowledged in Oct. 2009 that using G>1 was the
only reason that motivated 10 patents of this IPR disclosure. See:
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg01358.html

So we have good reasons to believe that an IPR disclosure specific to
this I-D could differ from that of RFC5170.

Do you agree or not? I'd like to understand your point.


Cheers,

    Vincent